TOPICS

Nearly all large Defense Department contractors had a code of business ethics and conduct in place, even before a new Federal Acquisition Regulation rule mandating such a program was finalized in December 2008, the Government Accountability Office reported this week.

In September 2008, the watchdog conducted a Web-based survey of 57 Pentagon contractors that received more than $500 million in Defense contracts in fiscal 2006. Of those firms, 55 reported having some kind of business code of ethics that included many of the practices and standards now called for in the FAR.

For example, 51 firms require ethics training for employees and managers working on Defense contracts. Meanwhile, 55 companies have ongoing ethics awareness and compliance programs, the survey found. And 54 contractors have a policy for employees to report wrongdoing anonymously or confidentially.


RELATED STORIES

"Having contractors implement internal control systems increases the likelihood that their ethics and compliance programs are generally effective in preventing, detecting and addressing contract-related fraud, waste and abuse," the report stated.

Under the new FAR rule issued in December, companies must establish internal control systems to facilitate the timely disclosure of improper conduct and cooperate fully with government agencies responsible for audit, investigation and corrective actions.

All but five of the companies GAO surveyed have an office or individual who is responsible for implementing the ethics program; conducting regular internal reviews or audits to test the program; and maintaining a code that provides examples of disciplinary consequences, such as counseling or termination, for violations.

GAO conducted the survey before the FAR rules was finalized in December. While investigators reviewed contractors' policies for consistency with the rule that would come later, they did not test the systems for effectiveness.

Under the FAR rule, contractor executives must disclose information to the federal agency's inspector general as soon as there is "credible evidence" that the company or one of its employees has violated contracting regulations related to fraud, bribery, conflicts of interest, false claims or gratuity. Previously, such disclosures were voluntary.

Contractors who knowingly fail to divulge violations and overpayments in a timely manner are subject to debarment and suspension.

It appears, however, that some Defense contractors might have beaten the government to the punch on disclosure of wrongdoing. GAO found that before the FAR rule was finalized, 34 firms already had a policy for voluntary disclosure of contract-related violations and misconduct to Defense.

"Today's report validates the dedicated work that DII companies have done to put robust ethics programs in place, even before required to do so by the federal government," said Richard J. Bednar, coordinator of the Defense Industry Initiative on Business Ethics and Conduct, a group of professional ethics officers from the defense industry.

Contractors' reaction to the FAR rule was mixed, according to the survey. Some contractors reported that the rule helps build employee trust and confidence and reduces risk and liability.

Others, however, noted that the rule's vague language "may tie up government resources in meaningless legal trivia." Some firms pointed out that disclosing an overpayment on a government contract could create operational difficulties because contracts are subject to reconciliation processes that are audited and adjusted over time.

In some instances, GAO fears that the new FAR rule actually could produce less disclosure to the government.

The rule exempts contractors with ethics programs that include their own hot lines from displaying a Defense poster with a phone number for reporting waste. In fiscal 2008, the Defense hot line received nearly 14,000 calls resulting in 2,000 cases referred to the government for investigation.

While the majority of the surveyed contractors have such a mechanism in place for employees to disclose problems, GAO fears that workers still might not be comfortable reporting directly to their firm unless they were guaranteed federal protection against retaliation.

"If more contractors opt not to display DoD's hot line posters, there is a risk that defense contractor employees will be unaware and not avail themselves of DoD's hot line," the report noted. "The DoD hot line poster's absence from contractor work sites could also jeopardize use of whistleblower protections for contractor employees put in place by DoD in response to legislation separate from the development of the FAR's contractor ethics program requirements."

GAO recommended that the Defense inspector general review the consequences of the rule and determine if further changes to the regulation were necessary. The department agreed with the recommendation.

COMMENTS

  • If contractors where following the FAR rules, they would not need an OCI Mitigation Plan when doing PMO or Architecture work. You cannot mitigate organizational conflicts of interest. Period. NGC recognizes this and selling their TASC unit to BAH who lives in the grey zone. Force the contractors to make a choice as the FAR directs. You can either plan or implement. Not both.
  • It's good that GAO is making sure the Hot line posters are up but what about compliance! The contractors put up the posters and in most cases have for years but that doesn't seem to apply to their contacting ethics. Is it ethical to wait and negotiation with your subs after you negotiate with the government? It is a good way to increase your profit. DCAA has tried to decrement the subs when there is information to do so but in a lot of the contractor can always come up with arguments to convince contracting officers that they should have the additional cost. Only when the contractors decide to start caring about the country they live in will this ever change. There are too many incentives for the contractors to distort the cost.
  • Problem is not contract knowledge of FAR rules but govt enforcement, especially OCI rules preventing contractors who provide architecture or PMO suppport from being able to bid as prime or sub. OCI mitigation plans are not allowed by FAR which clearly states that company shall not be in a position to benefit. Agency must force SIs to choose between planning or implementation work.